PURPOSE: Lymphatic mapping for prostate cancer can be used to determine therapeutic strategies. Sentinel node visualization requires sufficient nodal tracer uptake. We evaluated the effect of an increase in particle concentration on preoperative and intraoperative sentinel node depiction. METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 50 consecutive patients with prostate cancer. The first 25 patients (group A) received nanocolloid with standard labelling (0.4 ml (99m)Tc per 0.1 mg nanocolloid). The last 25 patients (group B) received nanocolloid with a reduced labelling dilution volume (0.4 ml (99m)Tc per 0.2 mg nanocolloid). The aimed injected volume and dosage were the same for both groups (225 MBq in 0.4 ml). Intratumoral tracer injection was followed by planar lymphoscintigraphy (15 min and 2 h), SPECT/CT and laparoscopic sentinel lymphadenectomy. Lymph node visualization was evaluated using a four-point scoring system (0 nonvisualization to 3 intense visualization) and count quantification on the 2-h anterior lymphoscintigram. In addition to the gamma ray detection probe, a portable gamma camera was used for intraoperative sentinel node visualization. RESULTS: Preoperative visualization in group A was 88% (mean 2.0 sentinel nodes per patient) versus 100% in group B (mean 2.6 sentinel nodes per patient). Visualization scores (p=0.008), total counts (p=0.001) and maximum counts per pixel (p=0.034) in the sentinel nodes were significantly better in group B. This also led to more efficient intraoperative detection of the sentinel nodes with the portable gamma camera (84% in group A versus 100% in group B). CONCLUSION: Enhancement of the particle concentration may lead to significant improvement in sentinel node visualization and intraoperative localization in patients with prostate cancer. Further research regarding optimization of radiotracer labelling by changing the particle concentration is warranted.
PURPOSE: Lymphatic mapping for prostate cancer can be used to determine therapeutic strategies. Sentinel node visualization requires sufficient nodal tracer uptake. We evaluated the effect of an increase in particle concentration on preoperative and intraoperative sentinel node depiction. METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 50 consecutive patients with prostate cancer. The first 25 patients (group A) received nanocolloid with standard labelling (0.4 ml (99m)Tc per 0.1 mg nanocolloid). The last 25 patients (group B) received nanocolloid with a reduced labelling dilution volume (0.4 ml (99m)Tc per 0.2 mg nanocolloid). The aimed injected volume and dosage were the same for both groups (225 MBq in 0.4 ml). Intratumoral tracer injection was followed by planar lymphoscintigraphy (15 min and 2 h), SPECT/CT and laparoscopic sentinel lymphadenectomy. Lymph node visualization was evaluated using a four-point scoring system (0 nonvisualization to 3 intense visualization) and count quantification on the 2-h anterior lymphoscintigram. In addition to the gamma ray detection probe, a portable gamma camera was used for intraoperative sentinel node visualization. RESULTS: Preoperative visualization in group A was 88% (mean 2.0 sentinel nodes per patient) versus 100% in group B (mean 2.6 sentinel nodes per patient). Visualization scores (p=0.008), total counts (p=0.001) and maximum counts per pixel (p=0.034) in the sentinel nodes were significantly better in group B. This also led to more efficient intraoperative detection of the sentinel nodes with the portable gamma camera (84% in group A versus 100% in group B). CONCLUSION: Enhancement of the particle concentration may lead to significant improvement in sentinel node visualization and intraoperative localization in patients with prostate cancer. Further research regarding optimization of radiotracer labelling by changing the particle concentration is warranted.
Authors: K Tsugawa; M Noguchi; K Miwa; E Bando; K Yokoyama; K Nakajima; T Michigishi; N Tonami; H Minato; A Nonomura Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Joost A P Leijte; Iris M C van der Ploeg; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Borys R Krynyckyi; Zhuang-Yu Zhang; Chun K Kim; Helena Lipszyc; Karina Mosci; Josef Machac Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: R A Valdés Olmos; P J Tanis; C A Hoefnagel; O E Nieweg; S H Muller; E J Rutgers; M L Kooi; B B Kroon Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Neivo Silva; Carlos E Anselmi; Osvaldo E Anselmi; Rafael R Madke; Angela Hunsche; Jose S Souto; Carlos A V Souto; Dante Sica F; Giovani T Pioner; Edson C Macalos; Antonio A Hartmann; Mauricio S Lima Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Lenka Vermeeren; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Wim Meinhardt; Axel Bex; Henk G van der Poel; Wouter V Vogel; Ferida Sivro; Cees A Hoefnagel; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: W Charles Conway; Mark B Faries; Michael B Nicholl; Alicia M Terando; Edwin C Glass; MyungShin Sim; Donald L Morton Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Nynke S van den Berg; Renato A Valdés Olmos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Teele Kuusk; Maarten L Donswijk; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Roderick E De Bruijn; Oscar R Brouwer; Kees Hendricksen; Simon Horenblas; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Warner Prevoo; Henk G Van Der Poel; Bas W G Van Rhijn; Esther M Wit; Axel Bex Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Gijs H KleinJan; Anton Bunschoten; Nynke S van den Berg; Renato A Valdès Olmos; W Martin C Klop; Simon Horenblas; Henk G van der Poel; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 9.236